Veritas - All Comments

re: The Pseudo-economics of Protectionism

Nelson — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:24:26 GMT

<blockquote>Foreigners buying-up assets, especially large corporations or critical infrastructure, threatens national sovereignty. They can blackmail the nation by threatening to pull out their investments, Thus the Govt should tightly control capital flows into the country.

How about that one? :)</blockquote>

I know it "feels" bad to have foreigners own our companies. But so what? If they "pull out their investments", someone else will own them.

re: The Pseudo-economics of Protectionism

kdnc — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:17:43 GMT

The Pseudo-politics of Trade Deficits/Free Trade

Lately it has become fashionable for those who claim to be astute economists to bemoan the evils of political views from both the left and the right. However, this penchant for the ascendancy of economic principles is founded upon a general lack of knowledge when it comes to politics.

I will stop the parody here because I believe most will have seen my point by now and it is this; writers like you make a fundamental mistake by leaving a discussion of political forces out when speaking about economics. No astute economist can leave politics out of his discussion of economics and no astute politician can leave economics out of his discussion of politics. This is a fundamental principle of Austrian economics.

In response to your “two points” (they are really just one since Assertion 1 would logically include Assertion 2 as well as many others like it) let me say that any reasonable “pseudo-economist,” or “pseudo-politician” for that matter, will understand trade deficits to be “bad” to the extent to which they set the stage for political forces that are destructive to the liberty of the free market and consequently the individual.

re: The Pseudo-economics of Protectionism

MCLA — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:15:14 GMT

Foreigners buying-up assets, especially large corporations or critical infrastructure, threatens national sovereignty. They can blackmail the nation by threatening to pull out their investments, Thus the Govt should tightly control capital flows into the country.

How about that one? :)

re: Fighting for Whose Rights?

Attackdonkey — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:58:39 GMT

Sure we all have the faculties necessary for free speech! They are God given to all. but what most are talking about there is the right to excercise that free speech, to burn a flag or protest a KIAed soldier's funeral ceremony and not be prosecuted by the government for it and put in prison or assulted by others without satisfaction in the courts.

I am not going to get into the Iraq war because I think the whole debate has become childish on both sides, but We did fight in Europe not just for our own preservations but for the preservation of Western Civilization, and yes for the liberties of the French, the British, the Jews, and the large number of dissenting Germans and Italians.

Now for Veritas. You are right on. the majority of people say this and even vetrans will say it. Its nothing more than a guilt trip 96.7% of the time! and I don't know if I even believe it because in an informal discussion I was in with other soldiers during basic training we were trying to rally morale, and we were talking about why we were doing this. At the beginning of basic we had a formal discussion as to why each of us joined, 3/4ths of my platoon said they either joined for college or for the bonus. So my morale already being high I thought it a good time to give a lesson and to explain what I had said in the more formal discussion weeks earlier, and defined Liberty.

I said I had joined to defend the right of people to protest the war. for the people of California to legalize gay marriage. for the people from Westboro Baptist Church to protest the funerals of our soldiers. and for hippies to burn and spit on the Flag of the United States. I really did join the Oklahoma National Guard for these reason and many others. The point I was trying to make is that Liberty isn't always "pretty" and often times it goes against things we find personally repugnant. like... well pretty much everything I mentioned above at least in my personal values system. I tried to explain that Liberty was more important than our own personal convictions as to the right and wrong of victimless acts.

as you can gather I talked for a while. but just a short while. it was no more than 5 minutes before one of them went and taddled on me to the drill sergeant and the rest were trying to figure out which on of them was going to hit me first.

The Drill sergeant was just as upset until I was able to explain to him what Liberty meant. he got the point but insisted that Basic Combat training was not the place for "politics101"

Some are fighting for your right to protest. I am. and others are too. most are in the National Guard of the Southern States but even these are sparse.

and of course these are not the issues of Iraq. if we LOST is Iraq the first amendment would not dissappear. but it is the oath we took. to defend the constitution. that is what I mean. that I am training to (and would ) fight to defend the constitution. and even when a war is bad or even unconstitutional, a proffessional soldier has to keep in mind, the ideas he is fighting for, not simply the mission objective.

re: Fighting for Whose Rights?

Brainpolice — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:15:12 GMT

The idea that my right to "free speech" exists because some dude died in a war a hundred years ago is definitely absurd. I already naturally possess the faculties necessary for free speech.

It is also commonly implied that the soliders are altruistically sacrificing themselves for the rights of the common peoples in the areas that they are fighting. I find this even more nonsensical.